@john is on PowPing!

PowPing is a place where you can earn Bitcoin simply by socializing, for FREE.
Never tried Bitcoin? It's OK! Just come, socialize, and earn Bitcoin.
Check out john's activities
Total Economy: 0.11 USD
As for powpress, really want to use it particularly for the rich editing not found on other platforms atm. But I feel it needs a monetization strategy for authors. Medium has changed theirs a couple times, but still relies on "reads" and how they interpret reads (formerly claps but that got out of hand obviously bc the claps have no cost-- something BitCoin solves inherently). Hate to say it, but paywalls have been working for a long time. New York Times, even bit.sv and yours.org worked in the small communities. Streamanity is working to a certain extent. Sure you have this planned of course, but creators will always want control of their work. Better a book with a lock, than a book that is one day burned.
I don't agree with this at all. There's no reason that people shouldn't make money from their work -- but people can already publish work from powpress onto those platforms and retain a paywall. Something common to all of the platforms that you already mentioned is that *none of them are actually successful*. As you said, Bitcoin solves this inherently.
john replied:
How does it work if you write your article on PowPress and then put on Medium? In a perfect world, couldn't the article get more attention on PowPing (and no tips) and thus steal economics from the author on Medium? If your article (again perfect world) made it onto NY Times with 1-article paywall (say $25) and all you could make on PowPing was $3.00 in tips (hypothetical), then having it on free PowPing would negate the need for anyone paywall NY Times. I'm probably missing something, but what is it?
gendale replied:
It's not a perfect world: The New York Times is failing. Nobody makes their living on Yours. The assumption that paywalls are working and have been for a long time doesn't have evidence to support it. Unwriter blogged about this explicitly, "information wants to be free". It's an attention economy. The key is to maintain ownership while allowing content to be reproducible, so that if a distributor / syndicator makes a profit off your work you are able to prove your ownership. Rethink EVERYTHING. In the future, you won't pay an ISP -- you'll pay for access to a Bitcoin full node. Content will be cached algorithmically based on how frequently it is accessed. Instead of paying hosting, sites can cover the costs of maintaining servers based on a payment channel model, similar to WeatherSV. High traffic sites can earn income based on how frequently people visit their website. The whole system of monthly payment models / subscriptions becomes obselete, as does ad revenue. With zero costs to host, content creators can focus on creating content, and they will get paid regardless of how far downstream they get the views.
john replied:
NYT valuation is within spitting distance of it's all-time peak during the Dotcom collapse-- up 10x since "Great Recession". It's been completely revived on a web subscription model. A paywall. Netflix has a paywall and is probably one of the biggest media assets in the world. Youtube attaches more ads to highly sought content than lower-sought content. Agree w you that subscriptions aren't the FINAL answer, but creators must be allowed to charge for their content, variable amounts depending on the type of content. Not all articles are worth the same. Some are only meant for small audiences, but extremely valuable to that audience (how to pack your parachute safely). Some content has mass appeal (A Zeppelin crashing into a tower). Not sure what the correct interpretation of "information wants to be free" would be, but can think of multiple interpretations. Also agree proof of ownership is important, but meaningless if ownership doesn't mean controlling entry price. A ticket to the movies is less than a ticket to Epcot Center, even if they were the same size.
musiq replied:
Netflix is trying to get into freemium https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/01/netflix-is-testing-a-freemium-model/ because they want to replicate Spotify's model, which is much more successful than NYT. Also you're using NYT as an example but it's more of an exception than the rule. Most other newspapers have given up trying to do paywall because nobody cares. NYT is only barely successful because they already have an arguably #1 brand in the newspaper category.
john replied:
Spotify is what's called a loss-leader. It's not free by any means. They are simply give you the equivalent of a "free trial" and relying on upgrades to get revenues. Medium does the same, they allow 5 reads per month, and if you exceed that they want their money.
john replied:
NYTimes also does same thing.
john replied:
Also, it's important to know that Spotify is burning cash badly, and have never been profitably that I'm aware.
john replied:
NYTimes has made a somewhat consistent 8-12% operating profit each of the past 4 years at $1.5 to $1.8 billion revenues.
gendale replied:
do you have a source on that? the information i can find on their net income suggests that they’ve had two mediocre years after 6 or 7 dismal ones. Hardly the picture of success
john replied:
Simplest way to do it if you just want to peruse the last 4 years.. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NYT/financials?p=NYT I wouldn't expect anyone to know this, but in Wall Street circles the New York Times once-controversial paywall is considered a brilliant piece of business process "innovation". To me personally it's not so brilliant, but Wall Street pays attention to "number go up" as their measuring stick for "brilliance". Current CEO of Microsoft is considered a "genius" when all he's really done is raise prices on his stuck legacy customers. Now for the COMPLETE look at just how screwed NYTimes was for an entire DECADE of blogs destroying their business (2000-2009) you'd have to compile the last 20 years of their financials into a spreadsheet. ditr@moneybutton.com will be going thru putting together your own spreadsheet for companies you like-- it's called our Icon series and the first episode will be out in the next 2 weeks. Ground-zero episode in this series will be how to assemble the PROPER number of shares for an equity (what VCs call the "cap-table"). We'll have many more episodes in that series showing people how to do the more-rigorous valuation work which can support the knowledge you already have about a sector or product.
gendale tipped:
0.11 USD
1 month ago
gendale replied:
sounds fantastic. keep me posted